Whether the assessment method of unlisted stocks differs from this Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, becomes invalid

These methods are evaluated by taking into account the assets and earnings of the issuing company prescribed by the parent law, and even if there are some differences in the detailed contents, they cannot be deemed to go beyond the delegated limit of the parent law.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

According to Articles 60 and 63 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") and Article 49 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17828 of Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter referred to as "former Enforcement Decree"), the value of the property on which the inheritance tax or gift tax is levied shall be calculated based on the market price as of the date of commencing the inheritance or donation. If the market price is unknown, the value shall be calculated according to the supplementary evaluation methods, such as Article 63 of the same Act, and if there is a sale, etc. within a specified period before or after the evaluation base date, the transaction value shall be recognized as the market price. However, in the transaction value, it shall be excluded from cases where it is objectively deemed unfair, such as a transaction with a related person under Article 26 (4) of the Enforcement Decree. According to Articles 26 (4) and 19 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree, relative

Therefore, even if there is an office of sale of unlisted stocks within a certain period before and after the evaluation base date, if it is a sale with relatives under the Civil Act, the sales value is deemed objectively unfair under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and if there is a person asserts that it is not, he should prove it.

The plaintiff in this case excluded the defendant, even though he purchased the shares of this case from 17,800 won per share from YO around July 2002. Thus, the defendant asserts that the sale price of the shares of this case must be proved by the defendant, but it is only a discretionary interpretation contrary to the above Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the judgment of the court below which ruled to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation principle and burden of proof under Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 49 of the former Enforcement Decree

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Article 63(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, unlisted stocks shall be evaluated in such a manner as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the assets, profits, etc. of the relevant corporation. According to delegation, Article 54 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that, with respect to the method of assessing unlisted stocks, if the method of assessing unlisted stocks falls short of the net profit and loss (an weighted average of net profit and loss in the last three years per share + total issued and outstanding

Article 63(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is an example of “property” and “profit” of the pertinent corporation as an important factor to be considered in calculating the value of unlisted stocks, and it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned two elements are to be reflected together or equally reflected. Thus, Article 54(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be deemed as a invalid provision that deviates from the scope of delegation under Article 63 subparag. 1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 63 (1) 1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and it shall not be deemed that Article 54 (1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act do not violate Article 75 of the Constitution that prescribes the limit of delegated legislation, Article 2

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.